#Gamergate, the war on nerds, and the corruption of the left and the free press

[zinfamous]

Also, zinfamous, gamergate has been the one policing twitter for people doxxing/harassing, even gaming journalists are starting to realize that:

https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/526240698493054978

We don't actually know who's doing the harassing/doxxing, but there has been a lot of evidence pointing to GNAA doing it to both gamergate/anti-gamergate people.

that's fiar. I had to fucking look up "doxxing" today to just start this and figure out what is going on.

basically, I see "feminists are evil!" and I realize there will always be idiots on both sides, because that, in itself, is such a complicated matter with actual history that predates the general illiteracy inherent in the internet.

so, basically, i'm sticking to the "fucking nerds and video games, making a whole lot of nothing out of nothing" interpretation of all of this.

Wow, that was like, phenomenally w
rong. I can't blame you for thinking that's what happened given all the misinformation out there but I don't think it could be more off the mark.

I could try to give an overview of what happened (at least from how I've seen it) but a lot of other places have so it might just be easier to dig that up. But what I really want to address, which is a big, weird undercurrent behind what you said, is that no one has some cause of supporting death threats or other forms of harassment or terrorism. That's not on pretty much anyone's agenda, regardless of what side they're for. Yes, they happen anyway, but by people who are totally anonymous, not ons who then go and try to make a case for it.

Nothing started with death threats, those are just a really sick thing that unfortunately happens with pretty much anyone who gains an audience online and has controversial things to say. Sometimes even with people who aren't controversial and did nothing to seek an audience, like that #AlexFromTarget kid.

fair enough. I feel like there are legit arguments from both camps at this point, but it all amounts to a bunch of dweebs encouraging sideline political opportunists to latch on to something for no valid reason.

so...

 

[senseamp]

What's more dumb than reflexive opposition?

A question that's an answer to itself. :thumbsup:

 

[gamervivek]

heh. Completely outside of this specific issue, I do understand this. I'm not sure where all the demarcations lie, but there are huge, huge gaps in activism and goals between the various waves of feminists.

I think Sanger and those at the onset of the 20th century were the first wave--their fight was for suffrage primarily, but also control of their body, which was a very different concept of the time. Women were a vessel for babies; nothing more, really. They wisely saw voting rights as the primary obstacle for any and all of their goals.

There was never an argument that women should be treated the same as men (that should be understood to have the very seem skills), but primarily that they should have equal representation and by proxy, equal acceptance.

the 2nd wave--Friedan, maybe? came about alongside the sexual revolution and basically rode that wave to gain more direct control of their sexual lives. This was always an issue (abortion had always been fought as a necessary right to access--it is as old as civilization, and always will be--because the access to safe procedure is the best way to limit the practice). This was also the group that argued for greater representation in the workforce. Within this wave was a more militant offset that pretty much despised the more pragmatic feminists, and I dont' think they ever reconciled (this second niche group is the only type of "feminist" that, basically, 100% of ignorant misogynists on this board and elsewhere use to generalize as "all feminists." What they would call "man-haters")

I think the 3rd wave is a contemporary wave that reimagines the niche militant group within the 2nd wave and hopes to bring those old battles back to the surface.

What we basically have are niche groups with the loudest voice, more or less distorting a generally positive movement.

First wavers are thought of as suffragettes primarily but that is not exactly right. They had already changed child custody laws and property rights long before the vote and the wish of feminism right from the time of Wollstonecraft's musings has been to see to it that sexes are thought of as equal.
Friedan wrote of bored housewives and ironically compared them to the concentration camp prisoners, her problem seemed to be that society was asking too little of women by just allowing them the housewife role. As a founder of NOW she then grew concerned about the 'lavender menace' in her organisation which I think you're referring to as the man-hating branch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_Menace#Origins

Third wavers are a degenerate breed of headless chickens that are built upon various issues like the girls' self-esteem crisis of the 90s(which Christina Hoff Sommers wrote of in her book, The War Against Boys). Second-wave feminists that have been installed in the academia and politics continue to be the primary driving force while third-wavers go about their own merry ways.

The two world wars interrupted what would have been seen as a straightforward movement. Feminist Intentions by WL George, 1920, spells their aims out disregarding the fear of feminists at the time of 'letting the cat out of the bag' and you'd find it remarkably similar to today's feminism.

The charge that feminists loathe men isn't unique to any of them. If you look up some anti-suffragette material, you'd find a similar theme. The suffragettes had a militant side which would've put second wavers to shame.

What was radical simply became mainstream. The following article from the first-wavers time wouldn't seem out of place in their analysis of misandry in recent culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...0UbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=L0kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1181,3047055

 

[realibrad]

In my opinion, the difference from old feminist movements and many feminist movements now is that the former fought for equality, and current fights to make society in the image it believes it should be.

I am all for equal rights for everyone, women included. I dont think anyone should attempt to make society conform to what they feel is "right".

 

[Riparian]

In my opinion, the difference from old feminist movements and many feminist movements now is that the former fought for equality, and current fights to make society in the image it believes it should be.

I am all for equal rights for everyone, women included. I dont think anyone should attempt to make society conform to what they feel is "right".

Yea, I think you need to reevaluate your statement. Fighting for equality was a fight to make society in the image they believed it should be. Your belief in equal rights is quite literally what you believe society should be as I am sure you can find plenty of people in this world that do not share that same belief.

 

[realibrad]

Yea, I think you need to reevaluate your statement. Fighting for equality was a fight to make society in the image they believed it should be. Your belief in equal rights is quite literally what you believe society should be as I am sure you can find plenty of people in this world that do not share that same belief.

No, I dont. Fighting for equality has nothing to do with changing peoples minds. It is true that one is usually connected to the other. If you were a racist, sexist asshole before women got to vote, you could still be a racist, sexist asshole after. What I disagree with, is things like "your rights end where my feelings begin".

Many feminist now believe that freedom of speech/expression should only be allowed when it does not offend anyone. My very existence is offensive to some, so how do you square that circle?

Women should have every right that a man does, no more, no less.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I dont. Fighting for equality has nothing to do with changing peoples minds. It is true that one is usually connected to the other. If you were a racist, sexist asshole before women got to vote, you could still be a racist, sexist asshole after. What I disagree with, is things like "your rights end where my feelings begin".

Many feminist now believe that freedom of speech/expression should only be allowed when it does not offend anyone. My very existence is offensive to some, so how do you square that circle?

Women should have every right that a man does, no more, no less.

This post reminds me of this Onion article:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-support-feminism-if-it-means-murdering-all,37301/

I know lots and lots of feminists. While I have met a handful that I consider to be man-hating, they are few and far between. Most of them have positions that bear no resemblance to what you're saying.

 

[Riparian]

No, I dont. Fighting for equality has nothing to do with changing peoples minds. It is true that one is usually connected to the other. If you were a racist, sexist asshole before women got to vote, you could still be a racist, sexist asshole after. What I disagree with, is things like "your rights end where my feelings begin".

Many feminist now believe that freedom of speech/expression should only be allowed when it does not offend anyone. My very existence is offensive to some, so how do you square that circle?

Women should have every right that a man does, no more, no less.

What you stated is quite literally just a viewpoint or your belief, which is fine. There are no true natural rights as rights are entirely enforced by the beliefs of a society. There is no universal right to equality nor is there a universal right to freedom of speech. They are both constructs formed from the collective beliefs of a society.

 

[realibrad]

This post reminds me of this Onion article:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-support-feminism-if-it-means-murdering-all,37301/

I know lots and lots of feminists. While I have met a handful that I consider to be man-hating, they are few and far between. Most of them have positions that bear no resemblance to what you're saying.

Perhaps, but growing up in the Bay Area, I met a lot with very stupid ideas. One of which was to say that he and she are sexist, and when you want to refer to a person, you should say they. I tried explaining that they was plural, and that you should say it, but it is dehumanizing and sexist.

As you likely know spy, I am pretty much a economic libertarian. I dont believe anyone should be held back in terms of equal rights.

 

[realibrad]

What you stated is quite literally just a viewpoint or your belief, which is fine. There are no true natural rights as rights are entirely enforced by the beliefs of a society. There is no universal right to equality nor is there a universal right to freedom of speech. They are both constructs formed from the collective beliefs of a society.

This is going to get very existential really quick, because rights are a construct of the human mind. To me, once you believe that, then rights are not divined and thus rights are different from beliefs.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps, but growing up in the Bay Area, I met a lot with very stupid ideas. One of which was to say that he and she are sexist, and when you want to refer to a person, you should say they. I tried explaining that they was plural, and that you should say it, but it is dehumanizing and sexist.

As you likely know spy, I am pretty much a economic libertarian. I dont believe anyone should be held back in terms of equal rights.

Just an FYI, they is actually also usable as a singular pronoun! Some people don't like it, but it's generally accepted.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/he-or-she-versus-they

 

[Pray To Jesus]

This is going to get very existential really quick, because rights are a construct of the human mind. To me, once you believe that, then rights are not divined and thus rights are different from beliefs.

Natural rights are known as rights because they are from God.

 

[realibrad]

Just an FYI, they is actually also usable as a singular pronoun! Some people don't like it, but it's generally accepted.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/he-or-she-versus-they

English is a living language, so I understand that it can change, however, for now it is incorrect to do. The reason that I dislike the practice, is because its pointless. He, she, tall, short are all descriptors that are useful. It seems to be very common practice to want to not identify anything that is associated with gender. I have no problem pushing the ideas of what makes a gender, but there are physical and mental differences. I don't like the idea of ignoring gender dimorphism as a way to create equality. Physically and mentally we are different. Equality is not about making people the same, its about treating them the same.

 

[Exophase]

Just an FYI, they is actually also usable as a singular pronoun! Some people don't like it, but it's generally accepted.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/he-or-she-versus-they

That basically says "you can do it even though it's actually wrong." I'm personally comfortable with using "they", I got sick of typing "he or she" all the time really quickly. Language is fluid and English has so much garbage that this is kind of a petty thing to get stuck on.

What really annoys me is when people opt to use "she" instead, especially when addressing a group that is predominantly male. Some people will kind of waft between pronouns with some attempt to distribute them evenly, which is just distracting. Especially when they forget to use the same one for the same person.

 

[Whiskey16]

If you [Nebor] still think that way, good luck convincing other women that you are right about this.

The gaming industry is going to change because some loudmouth cunts think it's unfair to women.

Well, DrDoug, you are dealing with a classic internet tough-guy who's a bullying, misogynistic, and violent psychopath:

If you [Nebor] think equality applies to threats, torture and murder, you are fucking nuts. Sane people are against shit like that, only a nutjob would try to justify it as equality. Besides that, the threatening, torturing and murder that men have suffered in the past has been at the hands of other men. If you really believe what you said then you [Nebor] have a problem with women and no problem with threats, torture and murder.

DrDoug, it's kinda sadly funny you correctly concluded Nebor to have no qualms with such threats and violence:

But like I said, those of us with more than an academic knowledge of you and your kind wouldn't mind if you filmed us while we put your entire extended family in one mass grave, because we know eventually it'll be you or us. We either fight now, alongside Israel, or wait until you convince enough idiots to let you gain the upper hand.

Way, way, way over any line.

Perknose
Forum Director

It wasn't a personal threat, it was a broad, general warning to everyone like you: It's just a matter of time until the West wakes up to the subversiveness of your words and actions intended to destroy our society with it's own virtues. When that time comes, it'll be bad news for people like you living among us, advocating for terrorists.

The Gamergate story does have the merited meat that there are extremely abusive bullies and potential psychopaths out there in forums and other social media that have no moral qualms about entering absolutely socially unacceptable, let alone potentially illegal, verbal posturing into a dialogue all to threaten another into silent submission, or worse, present a violently forecasted warning that may leave a virtual realm.

The misogyny brings into another angle of resentment against women and a long assumed prejudicial place for their being.

 

[Nebor]

Well, DrDoug, you are dealing with a classic internet tough-guy who's a bullying, misogynistic, and violent psychopath:

DrDoug, it's kinda sadly funny you correctly concluded Nebor to have no qualms with such threats and violence:





The Gamergate story does have the merited meat that there are extremely abusive bullies and potential psychopaths out there in forums and other social media that have no moral qualms about entering absolutely socially unacceptable, let alone potentially illegal, verbal posturing into a dialogue all to threaten another into silent submission, or worse, present a violently forecasted warning that may leave a virtual realm.

The misogyny brings into another angle of resentment against women and a long assumed prejudicial place for their being.

I love when you repost that. I get in trouble if I repost it. :biggrin:

 

[BoberFett]

This post reminds me of this Onion article:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-support-feminism-if-it-means-murdering-all,37301/

I know lots and lots of feminists. While I have met a handful that I consider to be man-hating, they are few and far between. Most of them have positions that bear no resemblance to what you're saying.

So you believe the hash tag activism (because Twitter will surely solve the world's problems) that comes in the form of #KillAllMen is productive?

Do they actually want to kill all men? Probably not. Maybe a few radicals do.

But it adds nothing to the conversation, antagonizes and polarizes. And if the tables were turned and someone started a #KillAllWomen campaign the media would light up with outrage as they've done in the case of Gamergate.

Sorry, but turning into what you hate has never solved anything.

 

[fskimospy]

So you believe the hash tag activism (because Twitter will surely solve the world's problems) that comes in the form of #KillAllMen is productive?

Do they actually want to kill all men? Probably not. Maybe a few radicals do.

But it adds nothing to the conversation, antagonizes and polarizes. And if the tables were turned and someone started a #KillAllWomen campaign the media would light up with outrage as they've done in the case of Gamergate.

Sorry, but turning into what you hate has never solved anything.

Wait, what? It's an article from The Onion. It's a joke.

 

[BoberFett]

Wait, what? It's an article from The Onion. It's a joke.

You should educate yourself before taking a side.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/twitters_latest_unfunny_trend_killallmen/

I'm aware of what The Onion is. I love The Onion, they skewer everything and everyone.

But the #KillAllMen thing was real. Feminists thought it would be a funny thing to start saying. When confronted on it, feminists laughed it off and told everyone to lighten up. I guess in the same way that women are supposed to lighten up when men joke about rape.

 

[MongGrel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92KFhrIrgyY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RU7ExRtSxQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0efvZbbmPk&list=PL7uaPdFfXYkxfnxb4perW_fY2fcJpSoAj&index=5

 

[fskimospy]

You should educate yourself before taking a side.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/twitters_latest_unfunny_trend_killallmen/

I'm aware of what The Onion is. I love The Onion, they skewer everything and everyone.

But the #KillAllMen thing was real. Feminists thought it would be a funny thing to start saying. When confronted on it, feminists laughed it off and told everyone to lighten up. I guess in the same way that women are supposed to lighten up when men joke about rape.

I didn't take a side on a #KillAllMen tag. I don't think death threats or rape threats are acceptable in any circumstances. No matter what some feminists might have done it in no way excuses the behavior of the gamergate people, which has been abominable.

Like I said before, the gamers themselves have done far more damage to their image than any feminist could.

 

[BoberFett]

I didn't take a side on a #KillAllMen tag. I don't think death threats or rape threats are acceptable in any circumstances. No matter what some feminists might have done it in no way excuses the behavior of the gamergate people, which has been abominable.

Like I said before, the gamers themselves have done far more damage to their image than any feminist could.

So on one hand you have a handful of feminists spouting hate, you call it a joke and give feminists a pass.

On the other hand, you have a handful of internet trolls making death threats but saying that all Gamergate people are acting abominably.

It seems you have chosen a side.

 

[werepossum]

I think a lot of you will be surprised to know that i'm a #gamergate supporter.

However, this narrative that this is a left/right issue is stupid. The overwhelming majority of people who support gamergate leans left:

https://twitter.com/HazmatBrigade/status/518208794401452032

SJW's are a caricature of liberals and most liberals i know don't really identify with SJW's.

Despite the false narrative, there are lots of self identified feminists who are on the gamergate side.

Well said. When one gets far enough out on either wing it becomes difficult to distinguish the difference. Add to that the common tendency to automatically view stupid things as part of the politically opposed movement and it's difficult to say anything valid about left/right weighting of non-left/right issues.

Well it's kind of a problem with a lot of scoring trends outside games. I'm pretty sure it's at least partially influenced by the grading scale in American schools (and maybe others, I don't really know). You know, where anything below 60% is a failing grade and therefore unacceptable. And since this is ingrained starting at a very young age...

I still don't think 7.5 is what most would consider bad (I think your infographic is exaggerated), although perhaps it'd leave a worse impression than a 7.5 on say, imdb.

Hmm, good point.

I'd consider 7.5 as a game recommendable for people who are big fans of the genre, theme or mechanics, but not for those who are less enthusiastic.

In my opinion, the difference from old feminist movements and many feminist movements now is that the former fought for equality, and current fights to make society in the image it believes it should be.

I am all for equal rights for everyone, women included. I dont think anyone should attempt to make society conform to what they feel is "right".

Good point, except I'd say that the huge majority of political debate is in the attempt to make society conform to what the individual feels is "right". As long as it is not coercive, I see no problem with this.

 

[Sulaco]

I didn't take a side on a #KillAllMen tag. I don't think death threats or rape threats are acceptable in any circumstances. No matter what some feminists might have done it in no way excuses the behavior of the gamergate people, which has been abominable.

Like I said before, the gamers themselves have done far more damage to their image than any feminist could.

As much as I really don't follow this issue, there's a serious, fatal flaw in your logic that seems to betray some bias.

The actions and "behavior of gamergate people" (your words). You're taking an entire movement of countless thousands and painting the group based on the internet antics of a handful? Many of those threats and questionable attacks being to shown to originate from trolls and anonymous users hoping to paint the GamerGate group in a bad light?

Yet when small groups of feminists bloviate and spew similarly hateful, violent, or insulting rhetoric, it's simply not reflective of the whole?

Unless you have some sort of statistic or evidence showing that a sizable percentage or majority of GamerGate folks support the inflamed rhetoric and attacks, it's fairly disingenuous of you to paint them or this 'movement' by the actions of a handful of internet fools.

 

[0roo0roo]

Doxxing is the favored tactic of sjw's and feminists. Their side is the ones who have been calling for doxing, from arthur chu to devin faraci, at some point or other they have condoned it. Anything to "protect the women" you know.

https://twitter.com/myloserville/status/521723751084597249/photo/1

https://twitter.com/devincf/status/523884023358423041
https://twitter.com/devincf/status/523734171857211392

But really, its more about the fact that their side doesn't actually have a legitimate argument to make. If they had to win based on merit alone, they would lose, so they always need someone to target directly for smearing. Its much harder to cry "misogyny" at an idea if your facts don't add up, but shouting "misogyny" at a person, that's how you shut people down. So doxxing is these peoples favored tactic, and we've seen it before in atheism plus/elevator gate.

Creepy Clowns: Freethought Bullies and the Threat Narrative Clown Horn
MykeruMedia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_7SRa_xQNQ

As mykeru explains in that chilling video.

Doxing is a tactic to try to suppress speech through fear. Which side cares about free and open discussion? The atheists and gamergate do. Which side is constantly trying to bar people from having a say? Feminists and sjw's. Whether its Anita closing comments on youtube videos, even her colbert report video is closed to comments, or reddit, or any of the sites which have deleted countless threads and accounts for even daring to talk about this subject, their side is all about the suppression of speech. And what better way to suppress speech by targeting individuals and calling them misogynists. In fact they are targeting peoples twitter accounts as we speak since the "wam" womein in media or whatever rad fem group was allowed input on twitter moderation. First step out of the gate, mass bans on accounts.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/10/the-sjws-now-get-to-police-speech-on-twitter/
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/11/the-sjws-now-get-to-police-speech-on-twitter-ctd/




WAM-Bam: No Thank You Ma'am
MykeruMedia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Dfrm55x14

Mykeru of course is one of the people hit, and still he is suspended because he isn't high profile enough to shame twitter into a quicker response. But they target him because they fear what he has to say.


https://twitter.com/lizzyf620/status/534042142080262145

@jordanowen42 @RogueStarGamez @Mykeru still suspended as well

The Gamergate story does have the merited meat that there are extremely abusive bullies and potential psychopaths out there in forums and other social media that have no moral qualms about entering absolutely socially unacceptable, let alone potentially illegal, verbal posturing into a dialogue all to threaten another into silent submission, or worse, present a violently forecasted warning that may leave a virtual realm.

The misogyny brings into another angle of resentment against women and a long assumed prejudicial place for their being.

That's a load of projection. By any standard we've seen professional adult people who are anti gamergate behave unimaginably worse than anything gamergate has been accused of.

"misogyny" has become a shield to abuse people, and to silence people. What this debacle has revealed is just how hipocritical these sjw types are, this new authoritarian left. They are literally worse than fox news at this point. They will lie, and then try to stop you from even being able to respond to them. Those are not progressive values anyone who is actually progressive will recognize. Why do they constantly shout about misogyny? Because they don't have an argument otherwise.

Again, these are a strange bunch of "misogynists"
Oliver Campbell stream #gamergate Threedog's news radio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8SG7QuxqD4
Threedog's #Gamergate News Radio Ep 4 mp3 version!
http://www.mediafire.com/download/1zyjznam05qybuk/Threedog's+#Gamergate+News+Radio+Ep+4.mp3

All you need to know about Gamergate is that while they were purporting to be about ethics in gaming journalism, they attempted to get a website blacklisted from getting advanced copies of future games because they disagreed with a review score. A publisher only giving advance screening in exchange for favorable coverage is what most people would consider "wildly unethical." For Gamergate, "ethics" means "say what we want to hear or don't say anything at all." That's why their "ethics" complaints have almost exclusively focused on feminism. "I don't want to hear about it, therefore it's unethical to print it." It's a movement for people who have absolutely no idea what journalistic ethics means (as summed up nicely by people who actually study ethics here and here).

Wow dude, did you actually just link us to free thought blogs? They were corrupted by sjw's and feminists in the first round of this mess. Atheism plus aka Atheism + feminism which led to a witch hunt of "misogyny" within that community even leading to false allegations of sexual misconduct being leveled left and right. Free thought blogs like rational wiki are now really just oxymorons at this point. Sites like that, and articles like that are exactly the problem we're talking about. Ethics? They wouldn't know ethics if it hit them in the face.

https://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/tag/freethoughtblogs/
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQJW3WMsx1q1OkWXNYx0Oozq6fpNCvvKZ
https://www.youtube.com/user/MykeruMedia/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-eNn6S9hXA
A run down of one of the worst allegations of rape to hit atheism/skepticism conferences since atheism "plus" became a thing, and how it doesn't add up.